>Don Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> Take a friggin hike!
>>
>
>Amen, Don!!!
Now, now, that's hardly hospitality.
Tim is entitled to his opinion, and he may even convince others that
he is right.
Furthermore, I'd like to remind everyone that forged foundation documents
are not at all uncommon in history. One of the most famous is the
Donation of Constantine, which alleged that the Roman Emperor Constantine
the Great granted numerous privileges and possessions to the Pope,
in particular it gave the Bishop of Rome primacy over all the
Patriachs of the East:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm
This document was forged sometime between 750 and 850, but was not
proved to be a forgery until 1440.
Throughout most of history, many people thought nothing of inventing
dialog and events to illustrate the character of the subject of
whatever they were writing, even when they claimed to be writing
history. This is why there are so many apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical books claiming to have been written by Biblical
figures. (This technique has been revived lately in, for example, a
recent biography of Ronald Reagan.) Recording hearsay as fact was
also common; Herodotus, for example, is notorious for that.
No fraud was intended by most of these people; they merely wrote what
they were convinced must have happened. And where exactly is the
line between fact and fiction? Homer turns out to have recorded
more true information about society and places from 500 years before
he wrote than had been believed until archaeology demonstrated it.
One of my hobbies is the evolution of esoteric societies and religious
organizations. I am indeed no historian, but I can say that it is quite
common for people of the most impeccable intentions to make up stories
about the founding of their organizations, to reinterpret texts that
originally meant something else, or to suppress information that
would not contribute to their position. This can happen consciously,
or it can happen through what the person believes is divine intervention
(and who am I to say it isn't). Even more subtly, they can simply
not contradict assertions made or documents produced by other people.
This plus occult organizations have spawned more bad blood and petty
infighting than even university faculties. Every schism of such an
organization provides motive for the production of documents to prove
the schismatics are more true than the other parties. Not everyone
has always been able to or even wanted to resist such temptation.
So it is not at all implausible to suggest that the Charter of
Larmenius was a forgery.
However, I, like many others would like to see the evidence.
And I would like to see the evidence that that Charter was authentic,
as well.
John S. Quarterman <jsq@mids.org>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html